This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-1096
entitled 'Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop System Infrastructure
Continues to Evolve, but Labor Should Take Action to Require That All
Employment Service Offices Are Part of the System' which was released
on October 4, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of
Representatives:
September 2007:
Workforce Investment Act:
One-Stop System Infrastructure Continues to Evolve, but Labor Should
Take Action to Require That All Employment Service Offices Are Part of
the System:
GAO-07-1096:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-1096, a report to the Chairman, Committee on
Education and Labor, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
In 1998, Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), requiring
states and localities to bring together employment and training
programs into a single workforce system, the one-stop system. States
have flexibility in how they provide these services—colocated within
the one-stop—through electronic linkage or referral. WIA did not
provide funds to pay for the infrastructure costs, but programs must
share the costs of operating one-stop centers. As Congress considers
reauthorization of WIA, GAO assessed (1) the current composition of
states’ one-stop systems and how this has changed, (2) what funds are
primarily used to support states’ one-stop system infrastructure and
how this has changed, and (3) the extent to which states are monitoring
customer satisfaction. Our work was primarily based on a 50-state
survey of state workforce officials, updating work we previously did in
2000 and 2001.
What GAO Found:
Over the last 4 years, 19 states reported a decrease in one-stop
centers, often citing a decrease in funds as one of the primary
reasons. At the same time, 10 states reported an increase, citing an
increase in demand for services and an increase in on-site programs. In
our 2007 survey, states reported that 13 of the 16 mandatory programs
were available at the majority of one-stop centers. States reported
they were providing Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment Service on-site at
one-stop centers, but some states also provided services through stand-
alone Employment Service offices—facilities that focus primarily on job
search and placement assistance. While states are required to maintain
these offices within the one-stop delivery system, 9 states reported
operating at least one stand-alone office unaffiliated with the one-
stop system. While Labor has taken steps to encourage states to provide
all employment services through the one-stop system, states have made
only modest progress in bringing these systems together.
WIA and Employment Service were the largest funding sources for states
to support the infrastructure—the nonpersonnel costs—of their one-stop
centers. Of the two programs, states reported that a greater percentage
of Employment Service funds than WIA funds were used for infrastructure
costs. States also reported less reliance on other programs to support
the infrastructure costs than in the past.
Nearly all states reported that they submitted customer satisfaction
data to Labor for program year 2005. In addition, 12 states reported
that they have established additional customer satisfaction measures
beyond those required by Labor.
Figure: Changes in Comprehensive One-Stop Centers for States between
Program Year 2001 and Program Year 2006:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO surveys of states in 2001 and 2007.
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that Labor step up action to ensure that all stand-alone
offices be affiliated with the one-stop system. In its comments, Labor
stated that the report would be useful, but disagreed with the findings
and recommendation regarding stand-alone offices, asserting that all
Employment Service offices are in compliance. Our results are based on
verified survey data; we stand by our findings and recommendation.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1096].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Cynthia M. Fagnoni at
(202) 512-7215 or fagnonic@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
The Numbers of Comprehensive One-Stop Centers and Satellite Sites Have
Decreased since 2001; Most Mandatory Programs Were Available at One-
Stop Centers in 2007:
States Frequently Cited WIA and the Employment Service as the Two
Largest Funding Sources Used for Infrastructure Costs:
Nearly All States Submitted Customer Satisfaction Data, and Some States
Have Established Customer Satisfaction Measures beyond What Is Reported
to Labor:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Survey of States on WIA One-Stop Centers:
Appendix III: Numbers of Local Workforce Investment Areas (LWIA) and
Comprehensive One-Stop Centers, and Related Information by State, as of
April 1, 2007:
Appendix IV: Changes in Numbers of Comprehensive One-Stop Centers and
Satellite or Affiliated Sites by State, 2001, 2003, and 2007:
Appendix V: Programs Typically Available at Comprehensive One-Stop
Centers by State:
Appendix VI: Distribution of Stand-alone Employment Service Offices in
States, as of April 1, 2007, and Employment Service Funds Used for
Infrastructure:
Appendix VII: Number and Percentage of Physical Locations at Community
Colleges by State, 2007:
Appendix VIII: States' Reporting on Comprehensive One-Stop Centers
Collecting Additional Information on Customer Satisfaction, Program
Year 2005:
Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Labor:
Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: WIA's Mandatory Programs, Related Federal Agencies, and Fiscal
Year 2006 Appropriation:
Table 2: Number of States Reporting Services for Mandatory Programs
Available On-site, through Electronic Linkage, or by Referral in the
Majority of Comprehensive One-Stop Centers, 2001 and 2007:
Table 3: Programs Funding One-Stop Center Infrastructure Costs:
Table 4: States with Additional Customer Satisfaction Measures for Job
Seekers and Participating Employers, Program Year 2005:
Figures:
Figure 1: Number of States and Percentage of WIA and Employment Service
Funds Used for Infrastructure Costs:
Figure 2: Changes in the Number of Comprehensive One-Stop Centers for
Each State, Program Year 2001 and April 1, 2007:
Figure 3: Status of Stand-alone Employment Service Offices in the
United States, April 1, 2007:
Figure 4: States Reported That the Majority of Physical Locations in
One-Stop Delivery Systems Were Leased:
Figure 5: Top Funding Sources Used to Support Infrastructure Costs:
Figure 6: Primary Funding Source Used by States to Support the
Infrastructure of Comprehensive One-Stop Centers:
Figure 7: Number of States and Percentage of WIA and Employment Service
Funds Used for Infrastructure Costs:
Figure 8: Number of States and Percentage of One-Stop Centers That
Collect Additional Information on Customer Satisfaction, Program Year
2005:
Figure 9: Programs Available On-site in a Typical Comprehensive One-
Stop Center by State:
Abbreviations:
ES: Employment Service:
HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development:
JTPA: Job Training Partnership Act:
LWIA: local workforce investment area:
TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families:
WIA: Workforce Investment Act:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 4, 2007:
The Honorable George Miller:
Chairman:
Committee on Education and Labor:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In 1998, Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), requiring
states and localities to bring together employment and training
programs into a single comprehensive workforce system, called the one-
stop system. Sixteen federally funded workforce development programs
are required to provide their services through the one-stop system, but
states have considerable flexibility in how they deliver services.
Programs, for example, may be colocated within the one-stop center,
electronically linked, or linked through referrals. In fiscal year
2006, Congress appropriated roughly $15 billion for the 16 mandatory
programs, including about $3 billion for WIA. WIA legislation did not
provide separate funds to pay for the infrastructure costs, leaving it
up to the mandatory partners to make their own cost-sharing
arrangements. In 2000, we conducted a 50-state survey that examined the
different arrangements one-stop centers were using to provide both
mandated and optional programs and the funding sources used by one-stop
centers to pay their infrastructure costs. We last updated this work in
2001. However, little is known about the current structure of one-stop
centers--the numbers of centers or the services provided at them--or
the infrastructure costs for the one-stop centers currently operating
across the 50 states and how these have changed over time.
As Congress considers reauthorization of WIA, you asked us to gather
information about how the one-stop delivery system has evolved since
WIA was enacted. Specifically, we assessed (1) the current composition
of states' one-stop systems and how this has changed over time, (2)
what funds are primarily used to support states' one-stop system
infrastructure and how this has changed over time, and (3) the extent
to which states are monitoring customer satisfaction with service
delivery at one-stop centers.
To gather information on how state and local one-stop delivery systems
established under WIA deliver employment and training services to job
seekers and employers, we conducted a survey of state workforce
officials in 50 states. The survey included questions on states' one-
stop delivery systems related to the numbers of comprehensive one-stop
centers and satellite or affiliated sites, program services, and
sources of funds to pay infrastructure costs for comprehensive one-stop
centers. We also obtained cost data for program year 2005. The
questionnaire was e-mailed to state officials in April, 2007, and we
received surveys from all 50 states, although some states did not
answer every question. We did not survey the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, and other U.S. territories. Our survey asked states to
provide information about their one-stop systems as of April 1, 2007.
In order to analyze trends in the one-stop delivery system, we compared
the 2007 survey data with data from 2000 and 2001.[Footnote 1] To
assess the reliability of certain data obtained from the survey, we
independently researched the information from other publicly available
sources. In addition to our survey, we conducted a literature review to
identify relevant findings from other studies--including those
sponsored by the Department of Labor (Labor)--that examined one-stop
delivery systems. (App. I contains a more detailed discussion of our
scope and methodology. App. II contains a copy of the questionnaire.)
We conducted our work between April 2007 and August 2007 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
From 2001 to 2007, the total number of comprehensive one-stop centers
in the 50 states declined by 7 percent. Over the past 4 years, 19
states reported a decrease in one-stop centers, frequently identifying
a decrease in funds as one of the primary reasons. In contrast, 10
states reported an increase, citing, among other reasons, an increase
in demand for services and an increase in the number of programs
provided on-site. From 2001 to 2007, the number of satellite or
affiliated sites decreased by about 13 percent. However, over the most
recent 4 years, the number of satellite or affiliated sites has
increased slightly. In our 2007 survey, states reported that 13 of the
16 mandatory programs required under WIA were available at the majority
of one-stop centers. States reported that three key mandatory programs-
-WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated Worker, and the Employment Service (ES)--
continued to be available on-site at the majority of the one-stop
centers. Also, more states reported that some programs were available
at one-stop centers electronically or through referral than in 2001.
While states reported providing Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment Service
on-site at one-stop centers, some states also provided services through
stand-alone Employment Service facilities--offices that focus primarily
on job assistance funded by the Employment Service. Nine states
reported having one or more stand-alone Employment Service offices that
were not affiliated with the one-stop system, a condition that is
prohibited by the Wagner-Peyser Act and its implementing regulations.
This represents a modest decrease from figures Labor reported in 2006
when 13 states operated parallel systems disconnected from the local
one-stop centers to a substantial degree. Since the establishment of
the one-stop system, some have expressed concern that state-owned
buildings may be reducing states' flexibility to optimize their
physical space. We found, however, that most states reported that they
owned relatively few buildings, leasing or renting about two- thirds of
the physical locations for their one-stop systems. Approximately 6
percent of all buildings in the one-stop delivery system were located
at community colleges; 31 states contained such buildings.
WIA and the Employment Service were the largest funding sources states
used to support the infrastructure--the nonpersonnel costs--of their
comprehensive one-stop centers. For program year 2005, 42 states
identified WIA and Employment Service as the primary funding sources--
of these, 23 states identified WIA as the primary funding source and 19
states reported it was the Employment Service. Fewer states were able
to estimate the percentage of their WIA and Employment Service
allotments that were used to support one-stop infrastructure. In
general, states reported that a greater percentage of Employment
Service funds than WIA funds were used for infrastructure costs. (See
fig. 1.)
Figure 1: Number of States and Percentage of WIA and Employment Service
Funds Used for Infrastructure Costs:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO survey of 50 states.
[End of figure]
States also reported less reliance on other programs to support the
infrastructure costs than in the past. For example, the number of
states that reported using Vocational Rehabilitation funds declined
from 37 states to 24 states. However, some states have increased their
reliance on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds for
infrastructure. For program year 2005, 16 states reported that TANF was
one of the three largest sources for supporting one-stop infrastructure
costs, including 6 of the 9 states with single statewide local
workforce investment areas. By contrast, 12 states reported that TANF
was one of the three largest funding sources in fiscal year 2000.
Nearly all states reported that they submitted customer satisfaction
data to Labor for program year 2005, as required under WIA. Since Labor
adopted the common measures in 2005, it has granted waivers to states
exempting them from reporting participant and employer customer
satisfaction. Labor officials reported that 20 states have obtained
such waivers and will be exempt from reporting customer satisfaction
data. Some states reported collecting additional information on
customer satisfaction beyond what is required by Labor. Twelve states
reported that they have established such additional measures, including
information on waiting time for assistance, helpfulness of the services
received, and extent to which services met customer expectations.
Finally, states reported that some comprehensive one-stop centers also
collect information on customer satisfaction, but the extent to which
this is done varies widely.
We recommend that the Secretary of Labor step up action to ensure
compliance with the Wagner-Peyser Act and its implementing regulations
by requiring that all stand-alone offices be affiliated or linked in
some way, either electronically or through direct referral, with the
one-stop system. Such actions may include additional technical
assistance and working with states to establish progress benchmarks
with the understanding that failure to meet the benchmarks may result
in further action up to and including a loss of grant funding.
We received written comments on a draft of this report from the
Department of Labor. Labor commented that the report contained
significant information and that it would be useful as Congress
considers reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. However, the
agency disagreed with our findings and recommendation regarding
unaffiliated stand-alone Employment Service offices. Labor believes
that all states are in compliance with the requirement that all
Employment Service offices be affiliated with the one-stop system.
Labor suggests that because GAO relied on a survey of states to collect
the information, our data are most likely the result of respondents
misunderstanding the survey questions. We developed and pretested the
survey instrument with state WIA administrators from 5 states to ensure
that it was easily understandable, unambiguous, and unbiased.
Furthermore, officials' responses to other questions confirmed their
understanding, and as part of our quality control, we followed up with
state officials when their responses were ambiguous. We believe that
respondents understood our questions and that our survey results are
accurate. We, therefore, stand by our findings and recommendation. The
agency's written comments are reprinted in appendix X.
Background:
The Workforce Investment Act created a new, comprehensive workforce
investment system designed to change the way employment and training
services are delivered. When WIA was enacted, in 1998, it replaced the
Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) with three new programs--Adult,
Dislocated Worker, and Youth--that allow for a broader range of
services to the general public, no longer using income to determine
eligibility for all program services. In addition to establishing these
three new programs, WIA requires that services for these programs,
along with those of a number of other employment and training programs,
including the Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment Service, be provided
through a single service delivery system--the one-stop system.[Footnote
2] States were required to implement these changes by July 1, 2000.
Sixteen categories of programs, receiving an estimated $15 billion from
four separate federal agencies, must provide services through the
system. (See table 1.)
Table 1: WIA's Mandatory Programs, Related Federal Agencies, and Fiscal
Year 2006 Appropriation (Dollars in millions):
Federal agency: Department of Labor;
Mandatory programs: WIA Adult;
Fiscal year 2006 appropriation: $864.
Federal agency: Department of Labor;
Mandatory programs: WIA Dislocated Worker;
Fiscal year 2006 appropriation: 1,472.
Federal agency: Department of Labor;
Mandatory programs: WIA Youth;
Fiscal year 2006 appropriation: 941.
Federal agency: Department of Labor;
Mandatory programs: Employment Service (Wagner-Peyser);
Fiscal year 2006 appropriation: 850.
Federal agency: Department of Labor;
Mandatory programs: Trade adjustment assistance programs;
Fiscal year 2006 appropriation: 966.
Federal agency: Department of Labor;
Mandatory programs: Veterans' employment and training programs;
Fiscal year 2006 appropriation: 224.
Federal agency: Department of Labor;
Mandatory programs: Unemployment Insurance;
Fiscal year 2006 appropriation: 2,508.
Federal agency: Department of Labor;
Mandatory programs: Job Corps;
Fiscal year 2006 appropriation: 1,564.
Federal agency: Department of Labor;
Mandatory programs: Senior Community Service Employment Program;
Fiscal year 2006 appropriation: 432.
Federal agency: Department of Labor;
Mandatory programs: Employment and training for migrant and seasonal
farm workers;
Fiscal year 2006 appropriation: 80.
Federal agency: Department of Labor;
Mandatory programs: Employment and training for Native Americans;
Fiscal year 2006 appropriation: 54.
Federal agency: Department of Education;
Mandatory programs: Vocational Rehabilitation Program;
Fiscal year 2006 appropriation: 2,720.
Federal agency: Department of Education;
Mandatory programs: Adult Education and Literacy;
Fiscal year 2006 appropriation: 580.
Federal agency: Department of Education;
Mandatory programs: Vocational Education (Perkins Act);
Fiscal year 2006 appropriation: 1,296.
Federal agency: Department of Health and Human Services;
Mandatory programs: Community Services Block Grant;
Fiscal year 2006 appropriation: 630.
Federal agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD);
Mandatory programs: HUD-administered employment and training;
Fiscal year 2006 appropriation: 85[A].
Federal agency: Total;
Fiscal year 2006 appropriation: $15,266.
Source: Departments of Labor, Education, Health and Human Services, and
Housing and Urban Development.
Note: Although WIA required 17 mandatory programs to participate in the
one-stop system, the Welfare-to-Work program has been discontinued,
reducing the total to include 16 mandatory programs.
[A] Estimated appropriation:
[End of table]
Each state must have one or more designated local workforce investment
areas, and as of April 2007, the 50 states reported having 563 local
workforce investment areas. Nine states reported having the entire
state as its workforce investment area, and California reported having
the most local workforce investment areas (50). (See app. III for
additional data about the numbers of local workforce investment areas
and comprehensive one-stop centers, and related information.) Each
local area must have at least one comprehensive one-stop center where
core services for all mandatory programs are accessible.[Footnote 3]
WIA allows flexibility in the way these mandatory program partners
provide services through the one-stop system, allowing colocation,
electronic linkages, or referrals. While WIA requires these mandatory
partners to participate, it does not provide additional funds to
operate one-stop systems and support one-stop partnerships. As a
result, mandatory partners are expected to share the costs of
developing and operating one-stop centers. In addition to mandatory
partners, one-stop centers have the flexibility to include other
optional partners, such as TANF or the Food Stamp Employment and
Training program, in the one-stop system to better meet specific state
and local workforce development needs.[Footnote 4] Services may also be
offered at satellite or affiliated sites--designated locations that
provide access to at least one employment and training program. About
$3.3 billion was appropriated in fiscal year 2006 for the three WIA
programs--Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth.
The Numbers of Comprehensive One-Stop Centers and Satellite Sites Have
Decreased since 2001; Most Mandatory Programs Were Available at One-
Stop Centers in 2007:
From 2001 to 2007, the total number of comprehensive one-stop centers
in the 50 states declined by 7 percent, and during the same period, the
total number of satellite or affiliated sites decreased by 13 percent.
Since 2003, 19 states reported a decline in the number of comprehensive
one-stop centers and frequently identified a decrease in funds as one
of the primary reasons. In our 2007 survey, states reported that 13 of
the 16 mandatory programs required under WIA were available at the
majority of comprehensive one-stop centers. States reported that three
key mandatory programs--WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated Worker, and the
Employment Service--continued to be available on-site at the majority
of the one-stop centers. More states also reported that some programs
were available at one-stop centers electronically or through referral
than in 2001. While states reported they were providing Wagner-Peyser-
funded Employment Service on-site at one-stop centers, some states also
provided services through stand-alone Employment Service facilities--
offices that focus primarily on assistance funded by the Employment
Service. Eighteen states reported operating one or more stand-alone
Employment Service offices; 9 of these states reported having at least
one unaffiliated stand-alone office outside the one-stop delivery
system. States reported that the majority of the physical locations--
the buildings that contain the one-stop delivery system--were leased or
rented in 2007. Only 10 percent were owned by the state.
The Number of Comprehensive One-Stop Centers Has Declined 7 Percent
since Program Year 2001:
The total number of comprehensive one-stop centers has declined since
we last reviewed it in 2001. Over the 6-year period, the number of one-
stop centers across the 50 states has declined from 1,756 in 2001 to
1,637 in 2007. (See fig. 2.) Over the last 4 years, 19 states reported
a decrease in one-stop centers, frequently identifying a decrease in
funds as one of the primary reasons. In contrast, 10 states reported an
increase during this period, citing, among other reasons, an increase
in demand for services and an increase in the number of on-site
partners.
Figure 2: Changes in the Number of Comprehensive One-Stop Centers for
Each State, Program Year 2001 and April 1, 2007:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO surveys of states in 2001 and 2007.
[End of figure]
Changes in the number of comprehensive one-stop centers in the last 4
years were generally relatively small. Thirty-five states reported
little (less than 10 percent) or no change in the total number of
comprehensive one-stop centers. However, some states reported large
changes, including 5 states that reported more than a 25 percent
reduction in the number of one-stop centers. Connecticut, for example,
reported more than a 35 percent decrease in one-stop centers, from 11
to 7 centers, a change that state officials attributed to a reduction
in funding that caused one-stop centers to be closed or redesignated as
satellite sites. Conversely, 4 states reported increases of 25 percent
or more in the number of one-stop centers. For example, Montana
reported a seven-fold increase, from 2 to 14 one-stop centers, as part
of a statewide restructuring of its one-stop delivery system that
involved converting former satellite and affiliated sites into
comprehensive one-stop centers. (See app. IV for detailed information
about the numbers of comprehensive one-stop centers and satellite or
affiliated sites and changes over time.)
The Number of Satellite or Affiliated Sites Has Decreased since 2001
but Has Risen Slightly since 2003:
From 2001 to 2007, the total number of satellite or affiliated sites
across the 50 states declined by 13 percent, from 2,032 to 1,764.
However, the number of satellite sites has increased slightly in the
last 4 years. Between 2003 and 2007, 17 states reported increasing the
number of satellite sites. Illinois, for example, reported a 45 percent
increase in satellite sites (from 53 to 77) to meet the demand in
underserved areas and to respond to specific large dislocation events.
In contrast, 17 states reported a decline in the number of satellite
sites. For example, in Florida, the number decreased by 56 percent--
from 39 to 17--because of ongoing funding cuts. In other states,
however, the decrease in the number of satellite sites was often the
result of a change in the states' official designation of satellite and
affiliated sites. Fifteen states reported no change in the number of
satellite sites since 2003. (See app. IV for detailed information about
the numbers of comprehensive one-stop centers and satellite or
affiliated sites and changes over time.)
The use of satellite sites in rural areas has changed in recent years,
according to a 2005 study sponsored by Labor.[Footnote 5] In the five
localities that the researchers reviewed, the rural local workforce
investment areas were focusing more on developing comprehensive one-
stop centers than on creating multiple, dispersed satellite or
affiliated sites. Researchers attributed the move away from satellite
sites to comprehensive centers to a number of reasons, including the
increase in the availability of electronic access to core services, the
greater ease of supervising colocated staff, the increased visibility
of comprehensive centers, and the fact that affiliated sites often had
limited hours that made them less attractive.
More States Reported That Mandatory Program Services Were Available at
One-Stop Centers:
In 2007, states reported that 13 of the 16 mandatory programs required
under WIA were available at the majority of comprehensive one-stop
centers. States reported that three key mandatory programs--WIA Adult,
WIA Dislocated Worker, and the Employment Service--continued to be
available on-site at the majority of the one-stop centers. More states
also reported that some programs' services were available at one-stop
centers electronically or through referral. These programs included Job
Corps, Senior Community Service Employment, and Adult Education and
Literacy. (See table 2.) In addition, states reported that services for
an optional program, TANF, were available in one-stop centers in more
states in 2007 than in 2001. Sixteen states reported that TANF was
available in the majority of one-stop centers in 2001, whereas 30
states reported that TANF was available at the typical comprehensive
one-stop center in 2007.[Footnote 6] (See app. V for additional
information about program services provided at a typical one-stop
center across all 50 states.)
Table 2: Number of States Reporting Services for Mandatory Programs
Available On-site, through Electronic Linkage, or by Referral in the
Majority of Comprehensive One-Stop Centers, 2001 and 2007:
Programs: Labor, WIA Adult;
Number of states, 2001: On-site: 50;
Number of states, 2001: Through electronic linkage or referral: 0;
Number of states, 2007: On-site: 48[A];
Number of states, 2007: Through electronic linkage or referral: 0.
Programs: Labor, WIA Dislocated Worker;
Number of states, 2001: On-site: 49[B];
Number of states, 2001: Through electronic linkage or referral: 0;
Number of states, 2007: On-site: 47[A];
Number of states, 2007: Through electronic linkage or referral: 1.
Programs: Labor: WIA Youth;
Number of states, 2001: On-site: 46[A];
Number of states, 2001: Through electronic linkage or referral: 2;
Number of states, 2007: On-site: 42[C];
Number of states, 2007: Through electronic linkage or referral: 4.
Programs: Labor: Employment Service (Wagner-Peyser);
Number of states, 2001: On-site: 49[B];
Number of states, 2001: Through electronic linkage or referral: 0;
Number of states, 2007: On-site: 48[A];
Number of states, 2007: Through electronic linkage or referral: 0.
Programs: Labor: Veterans E&T;
Number of states, 2001: On-site: N/A;
Number of states, 2001: Through electronic linkage or referral: N/A;
Number of states, 2007: On-site: 46[C];
Number of states, 2007: Through electronic linkage or referral: 1.
Programs: Labor: DVOPS;
Number of states, 2001: On-site: 42[B];
Number of states, 2001: Through electronic linkage or referral: 5;
Number of states, 2007: On-site: N/A;
Number of states, 2007: Through electronic linkage or referral: N/A.
Programs: Labor: LVER;
Number of states, 2001: On-site: 43[B];
Number of states, 2001: Through electronic linkage or referral: 3;
Number of states, 2007: On-site: N/A;
Number of states, 2007: Through electronic linkage or referral: N/A.
Programs: Labor: Trade Adjustment Assistance;
Number of states, 2001: On-site: 43[B];
Number of states, 2001: Through electronic linkage or referral: 5;
Number of states, 2007: On-site: 43[A];
Number of states, 2007: Through electronic linkage or referral: 5.
Programs: Labor: Unemployment Insurance;
Number of states, 2001: On-site: 34[A];
Number of states, 2001: Through electronic linkage or referral: 13;
Number of states, 2007: On-site: 31[C];
Number of states, 2007: Through electronic linkage or referral: 15.
Programs: Labor: Senior Community Service Employment Program;
Number of states, 2001: On-site: 30[D];
Number of states, 2001: Through electronic linkage or referral: 5;
Number of states, 2007: On-site: 19[D];
Number of states, 2007: Through electronic linkage or referral: 22.
Programs: Labor: Job Corps;
Number of states, 2001: On-site: 21[E];
Number of states, 2001: Through electronic linkage or referral: 12;
Number of states, 2007: On-site: 11[C];
Number of states, 2007: Through electronic linkage or referral: 33.
Programs: Labor: Employment and Training for Migrant and Seasonal Farm
Workers;
Number of states, 2001: On-site: 24[C];
Number of states, 2001: Through electronic linkage or referral: 9;
Number of states, 2007: On-site: 22[D];
Number of states, 2007: Through electronic linkage or referral: 19.
Programs: Education: Vocational Rehabilitation;
Number of states, 2001: On-site: 39;
Number of states, 2001: Through electronic linkage or referral: 4;
Number of states, 2007: On-site: 29[C];
Number of states, 2007: Through electronic linkage or referral: 16.
Programs: Education: Adult Education and Literacy;
Number of states, 2001: On-site: 26[D];
Number of states, 2001: Through electronic linkage or referral: 12;
Number of states, 2007: On-site: 22[C];
Number of states, 2007: Through electronic linkage or referral: 22.
N/A = Not applicable:
Sources: GAO surveys of states in 2001 and 2007.
Notes: (1) States were asked to report on availability of Disabled
Veterans' Outreach Program Specialists (DVOPS) and Local Veterans'
Employment Representative (LVER) programs in 2001 rather than Veterans'
E&T. (2) GAO received inadequate survey response rates in 2001 for four
programs (Community Service Block Grants, Housing and Urban Development
Employment and Training, Employment and Training for Native Americans,
and Vocational Education) to allow comparison. (3) Two states--
California and New Mexico--did not respond to the question on
availability of any program services at one-stop centers in 2007.
[A] Two states did not respond to the question.
[B] One state did not respond to the question.
[C] Three states did not respond to the question.
[D] Four states did not respond to the question.
[E] Five states did not respond to the question.
[End of table]
While states reported they were providing Wagner-Peyser-funded
Employment Service on-site at one-stop centers, some states also
provided services through stand-alone Employment Service facilities--
offices that focus primarily on job search and placement assistance.
Overall, 18 states reported in our 2007 survey that they had at least
one stand-alone Employment Service office. Nine states reported that at
least one of these stand-alone offices were unaffiliated and not part
of the one-stop delivery system. Six of these states reported that they
operated all of their stand-alone Employment Service offices as
unaffiliated sites completely outside the one-stop system. This
represents a modest decrease from the figures Labor reported in 2006,
when 19 states overall were identified as having at least one stand-
alone Employment Service office, 13 of which were operating parallel
systems disconnected from the local one-stop centers to a substantial
degree. (See fig. 3.) (See app. VI for additional information about
stand-alone employment service offices.)
The Wagner-Peyser Act requires that all labor exchange services be
provided as part of the one-stop delivery system.[Footnote 7] Labor's
implementing regulations provide that Employment Service offices may
not exist outside the one-stop delivery system, but allow stand-alone
Employment Service offices to operate as affiliated sites or as
electronically or technologically linked access points. Labor has
expressed concern that these stand-alone Employment Service offices
cause confusion for individuals and employers and promote duplication
of effort. While Labor has the option to withhold funding, it has not
done so, but has taken other steps to encourage states to provide all
employment services through the one-stop system. These actions include
providing policy guidance, monitoring the status of states' workforce
integration, conducting forums, and providing technical assistance to
states in support of integration of stand-alone offices into one-stop
centers. In addition, Labor reports that it is requiring states to
include information on their efforts to improve one-stop coordination
and integration in their WIA state plan updates this year. And Labor
has proposed legislative initiatives and regulatory changes--that
currently await reauthorization--designed to better integrate services
at the one-stop. Despite the range of Labor's efforts, states have made
only modest progress in bringing these systems together.
Figure 3: Status of Stand-alone Employment Service Offices in the
United States, April 1, 2007:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO survey of 50 states.
[End of figure]
The Majority of Physical Locations in the One-Stop Delivery System Were
Leased or Rented:
Since the establishment of the one-stop system, some have expressed
concern that state-owned buildings may be reducing states' flexibility
to optimize their physical space. We found, however, that most states
reported that they owned relatively few buildings, leasing or renting
about two-thirds of the physical locations for their one-stop systems.
Overall, states reported that the one-stop delivery system comprised
nearly 3,400 physical locations. Of the overall total, states reported
that about 65 percent of the buildings were leased or rented, and only
10 percent were state-owned. (See fig. 4.)
Figure 4: States Reported That the Majority of Physical Locations in
One-Stop Delivery Systems Were Leased:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO survey of 50 states.
Note: Numbers may not total 100 because of rounding.
[End of figure]
Most states (37) reported that they owned less than 20 percent of the
buildings used to operate the one-stop system,[Footnote 8] and 10 of
these states reported that they did not own any of the physical
locations. In contrast, 4 states reported that over half of the
buildings used to operate the one-stop delivery systems were state-
owned. Two states also reported that the majority of the buildings were
neither leased nor owned but otherwise provided, including facilities
that were provided for free.
States generally reported that a small percentage of buildings in their
one-stop delivery system were located on the campuses of community
colleges. In our survey, 31 states reported having at least one
facility located on a community college campus, and these states
reported a total of 186 physical locations--approximately 6 percent--on
campus. North Carolina reported the highest percentage of facilities
located on community college campuses at 25 percent, and with 31
physical locations, represented 17 percent of the total number. (See
app. VII for more information about the numbers of physical locations
on the campuses of community colleges.)
States Frequently Cited WIA and the Employment Service as the Two
Largest Funding Sources Used for Infrastructure Costs:
While most states relied heavily on one or two programs to support one-
stop infrastructure costs, some states dispersed the costs among
numerous programs. WIA and the Employment Service were the two programs
most often identified as funding sources used for infrastructure--the
nonpersonnel costs--of operating comprehensive one-stop centers. In our
2007 survey, most states reported that WIA and the Employment Service
were the largest contributors toward infrastructure costs for program
year 2005. (See fig. 5.) Of the 48 states that were able to report on
infrastructure funding for comprehensive one-stop centers, 23 states
identified WIA as the top funding source and 19 states reported that
Employment Service funds were the largest funding source. Three states
reported that TANF funds were the largest funding source. (See fig. 6.)
The choices states made regarding infrastructure funding appear to be
independent of state size, population density, or the number of
comprehensive one-stop centers.
Figure 5: Top Funding Sources Used to Support Infrastructure Costs:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO survey of 50 states.
Note: Two states did not respond to the question on the funding sources
that contributed the most to financing one-stop centers.
[End of figure]
Figure 6: Primary Funding Source Used by States to Support the
Infrastructure of Comprehensive One-Stop Centers:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO survey of 50 states.
[End of figure]
While WIA and the Employment Service were the primary funding sources
used to support infrastructure costs in program year 2005, states
varied in their ability to report more detailed information on
infrastructure costs in our survey. Of the states that could report,
more states reported that a greater percentage of their Employment
Service funds than WIA funds were used to finance the infrastructure of
the one-stop comprehensive centers. (See fig. 7.) Specifically, of the
41 states that provided estimates for the percentage of their
Employment Service allotment used for infrastructure costs, 29 reported
using more than 10 percent. Conversely, of the 29 states that provided
estimates for the percentage of WIA funds, 21 states reported using 10
percent or less. (See app. VIII for state-reported data on the
percentage of WIA and Employment Service allocations used for
infrastructure costs during program year 2005.)
Figure 7: Number of States and Percentage of WIA and Employment Service
Funds Used for Infrastructure Costs:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO survey of 50 states.
[End of figure]
Moreover, for program year 2005, states reported less reliance on other
programs for funding the one-stop infrastructure costs than in the
past. (See table 3.) For example, over a 5-year period, the number of
states that reported using Vocational Rehabilitation program funds for
infrastructure costs declined from 37 to 24. While the number of states
relying on TANF funds has declined, more states identified it as one of
the three largest funding sources for infrastructure costs for program
year 2005 than previously reported. Sixteen states reported that TANF
was one of the three largest contributors to financing one-stop
centers, including 6 of the 9 states with single statewide workforce
investment areas. In fiscal year 2000, 12 states reported that TANF was
one of the three largest funding sources.
Table 3: Programs Funding One-Stop Center Infrastructure Costs:
Program: Labor: WIA Title I/JTPA;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, fiscal year
2000: 50;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, fiscal year
2001: 50;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, program year
2005: 50.
Program: Labor: Employment Service (Wagner-Peyser);
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, fiscal year
2000: 49;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, fiscal year
2001: 50;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, program year
2005: 50.
Program: Labor: Veterans' E&T Program;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, fiscal year
2000: 43;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, fiscal year
2001: 43;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, program year
2005: 41.
Program: Labor: NAFTA[A] and Trade Adjustment Assistance;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, fiscal year
2000: 39;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, fiscal year
2001: 41;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, program year
2005: 30.
Program: Labor: Unemployment Insurance;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, fiscal year
2000: 39;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, fiscal year
2001: 39;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, program year
2005: 34.
Program: Labor: Welfare-to-Work Grants;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, fiscal year
2000: 39;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, fiscal year
2001: 38;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, program year
2005: N/A.
Program: Labor: One-Stop Implementation Grants;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, fiscal year
2000: 37;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, fiscal year
2001: N/A;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, program year
2005: N/A.
Program: Labor: Job Corps;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, fiscal year
2000: 20;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, fiscal year
2001: 24;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, program year
2005: 11.
Program: Education: Vocational Rehabilitation;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, fiscal year
2000: 37;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, fiscal year
2001: 37;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, program year
2005: 24.
Program: Education: Adult Education and Literacy;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, fiscal year
2000: 29;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, fiscal year
2001: 29;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, program year
2005: 15.
Program: Education: Vocational Education;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, fiscal year
2000: 24;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, fiscal year
2001: 19;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, program year
2005: N/A.
Program: Other: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, fiscal year
2000: 33;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, fiscal year
2001: 36;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, program year
2005: 27.
Program: Other: Community Colleges;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, fiscal year
2000: N/A;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, fiscal year
2001: N/A;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, program year
2005: 11.
Program: Other: State Funds;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, fiscal year
2000: N/A;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, fiscal year
2001: 31;
Number of states using program funds for infrastructure, program year
2005: 24.
N/A = Not applicable.
Sources: GAO surveys of states in 2000, 2001, and 2007.
[A] North American Free Trade Agreement.
[End of table]
Regarding the stand-alone offices, we asked states to provide estimates
of their state's total Employment Service allotment used to support the
infrastructure of these offices.[Footnote 9] Among the 6 states that
provided this information, they reported that the amount ranged from 0
to 14 percent, and the overall average was approximately 5 percent.
However, the state with the most stand-alone Employment Service
offices, Iowa, reported that it did not use any of its Employment
Service allotment to support the infrastructure of these offices.
Instead, Iowa financed the infrastructure costs of its 30 stand-alone
offices with state general funds.
Nearly All States Submitted Customer Satisfaction Data, and Some States
Have Established Customer Satisfaction Measures beyond What Is Reported
to Labor:
Nearly all states submitted customer satisfaction data for both job
seekers and employers to Labor for program year 2005, as required under
WIA.[Footnote 10] In addition, 12 states reported that they had
established measures for customer satisfaction beyond what is required.
For example, some states collected information on waiting time for
assistance, helpfulness of the services received, and extent to which
services met customer expectations. Of these 12 states, 10 established
additional customer satisfaction measures for both job seekers and
participating employers, and 2 states established additional customer
satisfaction measures just for job seekers. (See table 4.)
Table 4: States with Additional Customer Satisfaction Measures for Job
Seekers and Participating Employers, Program Year 2005:
State: Connecticut;
Additional customer satisfaction measures, for job seekers: [Check];
Additional customer satisfaction measures, for participating employers:
[Check].
State: Delaware;
Additional customer satisfaction measures, for job seekers: [Check];
Additional customer satisfaction measures, for participating employers:
[Check].
State: Maine;
Additional customer satisfaction measures, for job seekers: [Check];
Additional customer satisfaction measures, for participating employers:
[Check].
State: Minnesota;
Additional customer satisfaction measures, for job seekers: [Check];
Additional customer satisfaction measures, for participating employers:
[Check].
State: Missouri;
Additional customer satisfaction measures, for job seekers: [Check];
Additional customer satisfaction measures, for participating employers:
[Check].
State: Nebraska;
Additional customer satisfaction measures, for job seekers: [Check];
Additional customer satisfaction measures, for participating employers:
[Empty].
State: Nevada;
Additional customer satisfaction measures, for job seekers: [Check];
Additional customer satisfaction measures, for participating employers:
[Check].
State: New Hampshire;
Additional customer satisfaction measures, for job seekers: [Check];
Additional customer satisfaction measures, for participating employers:
[Check].
State: New York;
Additional customer satisfaction measures, for job seekers: [Check];
Additional customer satisfaction measures, for participating employers:
[Check].
State: Oklahoma;
Additional customer satisfaction measures, for job seekers: [Check];
Additional customer satisfaction measures, for participating employers:
[Check].
State: Oregon;
Additional customer satisfaction measures, for job seekers: [Check];
Additional customer satisfaction measures, for participating employers:
[Check].
State: Washington;
Additional customer satisfaction measures, for job seekers: [Check];
Additional customer satisfaction measures, for participating employers:
[Check].
Source: GAO survey of 50 states.
[End of table]
Since 2005, when Labor moved to using common measures, Labor has
granted, upon request, waivers to states exempting them from reporting
on participant and employer customer satisfaction. As of August, 2007,
Labor reported that 20 states, including the District of Columbia, have
such waivers, exempting them from reporting customer satisfaction
data.[Footnote 11] In addition, all states report on employment-related
outcomes for the common performance measures--three for adults and
three for youth--and are required to negotiate with Labor separate
goals and report on outcomes for both the WIA Adult and WIA Dislocated
Worker programs.[Footnote 12]
According to state officials, comprehensive one-stop centers also
collect customer satisfaction data not required by the state, but the
extent to which one-stop centers are collecting information varies
considerably. Eight states reported that all of their comprehensive one-
stop centers collected additional information on customer satisfaction,
and 9 more states reported that the majority of their one-stop centers
collected additional information. Conversely, 7 states reported that
none of their one-stop centers collected any additional information
from job seekers or participating employers. (See fig. 8.) (See app. IX
for states' reporting on the extent that one-stop centers collect
additional information on customer satisfaction.)
Figure 8: Number of States and Percentage of One-Stop Centers That
Collect Additional Information on Customer Satisfaction, Program Year
2005:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO survey of 50 states.
Note: The remaining 12 states did not know whether or not the one-stop
centers were collecting additional information on customer satisfaction.
[End of figure]
Conclusions:
Our study presents a snapshot in time of the evolving structure of the
one-stop system in each of the 50 states. Because WIA provided states
and localities with flexibility in deciding how to implement the one-
stop system, the picture continues to evolve as systems are tailored to
meet ever changing local needs. The results of our survey suggest that
states and localities have developed a variety of different approaches
to deliver services. However, nine states reported operating at least
one stand-alone Employment Service office outside the one-stop delivery
system, a situation prohibited by the Wagner-Peyser Act and its
implementing:
regulations. Although the services provided may be useful, because
these offices are not linked to the one-stop system in any way--either
electronically or by referral, program participants may not be
receiving the complete range of services they need to gain employment
or other job-related assistance. It may also be the case that these
separate systems result in duplication of effort and inefficient use of
resources. We support Labor's steps thus far to integrate Wagner-
Peyser-funded employment services into the one-stop system, but they
have resulted in only modest improvement. Without further integration,
these separate stand-alone offices may continue to create confusion for
clients, result in duplication of effort, and undermine the key goal of
WIA--to consolidate the nation's workforce development system.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Secretary of Labor step up action to ensure
compliance with the Wagner-Peyser Act and its implementing regulations
by requiring that all stand-alone offices be affiliated or linked in
some way, either electronically or through direct referral, with the
one-stop system. Such actions may include additional technical
assistance and working with states to establish progress benchmarks
with the understanding that failure to meet the benchmarks may result
in further action up to and including a loss of grant funding.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to Labor for review and comment.
Labor commented that the report provides significant information that
will be useful to Congress in reauthorizing WIA, but the department
disagreed with some of the report's findings, the recommendation, and
the report's title.
Specifically, Labor commented that it does not believe that the
report's findings regarding the presence of unaffiliated stand-alone
Employment Service offices and the recommendation to step up action to
bring them into compliance are sound. Labor comments that it is not
aware of any specific instance of an unaffiliated, stand-alone
Employment Service office. Labor states that requirements to become
affiliated are broad and easy to meet and, as a result, believes that
unaffiliated offices do not exist. Labor suggests that because we rely
on a survey of states to collect the information, the data are most
likely the result of a misunderstanding on the part of survey
respondents. In conducting our work, we followed generally accepted
government auditing standards. We developed the survey instrument based
on a questionnaire used in previous studies, and, for this study, we
pretested it with state WIA administrators from five states to ensure
that it was easily understandable, unambiguous, and unbiased.
Furthermore, officials' responses to other questions confirmed their
understanding, and as part of our quality control, we followed up with
state officials when their responses were ambiguous. In one case, for
example, responses were ambiguous on the questions related to stand-
alone offices. We conducted a follow-up conversation with a state
official who confirmed that the states' stand-alone offices were not
affiliated with the one-stop system. We therefore believe that
respondents understood our questions and that our survey results are
accurate. We stand by our findings and our recommendation. Given that
Labor reports requirements to be affiliated with the one-stop system
are easy to meet, we hope that Labor will take steps to ensure that all
states are meeting those requirements. In addition, Labor notes that
withholding funding for noncompliance would be difficult and
inefficient. We concur that withholding funds would be draconian, and
we would hope that, given the ease in meeting the requirements, no
state would suffer this consequence.
In addition, Labor expressed concerns that while we note a number of
actions undertaken by officials to better foster coordination, we have
not fully reported all steps Labor has taken. We have modified the text
to reflect the new information provided in Labor's written comments.
Finally, Labor stated that the report's draft title does not fully
reflect the broad range of topics discussed in this report. We have
modified the title. Labor's entire comments are in appendix X.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the Secretary of Labor, relevant congressional committees, and
others who are interested. Copies will also be made available at no
charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
Please contact me on (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any
questions about this report. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs can be found on the last
page of this report. Other major contributors are listed in appendix XI.
Sincerely yours,
Singed by:
Cynthia M. Fagnoni:
Managing Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our study assessed (1) the current composition of states' one-stop
systems and how this has changed over time, (2) what funds are
primarily used to support states' one-stop system infrastructure and
how this has changed over time, and (3) the extent to which states are
monitoring customer satisfaction with service delivery at one-stop
centers.
To provide information on how state and local one-stop delivery systems
established under Workforce Investment Act (WIA) deliver employment and
training services to job seekers and employers, we conducted an
electronic survey of state workforce officials in 50 states. We did not
survey the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other U.S.
territories. The survey included questions on states' one-stop delivery
systems related to the:
* numbers of local workforce investment areas and participants served;
* numbers of comprehensive one-stop centers, satellite or affiliated
sites, and how these changed from program year 2003 to April 1, 2007;
* infrastructure cost data for program year 2005;
* use of stand-alone Employment Service offices;
* mandatory programs and how these services were provided;
* extent of integration of certain functions (e.g., reception area,
information systems, and intake forms) at comprehensive one-stop
centers; and:
* program monitoring of customer satisfaction.
The questionnaire was forwarded to state officials in April 2007, and
responses were received through late May 2007. We received surveys from
all 50 states, although some states did not answer every question.
States' survey responses were as of April 1, 2007. Because we
administered the survey to all 50 states, our results are not subject
to sampling error. However, the practical difficulties of conducting
any survey may introduce other types of errors, commonly referred to as
nonsampling errors. For example, differences in how a particular
question is interpreted, or the sources of information available to
respondents in answering a question, can introduce unwanted variability
into the survey results. We included steps in the development of the
survey, the collection of data, and the editing and analysis of data to
minimize such nonsampling errors. To reduce nonsampling error, the
questionnaire was reviewed by survey specialists and pretested with
officials from 5 states to develop a questionnaire that was relevant,
easy to comprehend, unambiguous, and unbiased. We made changes to the
content and format of the questionnaire based on the specialists'
reviews and the results of the pretests. Completed questionnaires were
keypunched, and each record was verified by comparing them with their
corresponding questionnaires, and any errors were corrected. When the
data were analyzed, a second independent analyst checked all computer
programs. Finally, to assess the reliability of certain data obtained
from the survey, we independently researched the information from other
publicly available sources.
In order to analyze trends in states' one-stop delivery systems, we
compared 2007 survey data with survey data from 2000 and 2001. In
addition to our surveys, we conducted a literature review to identify
relevant findings from other studies--including those sponsored by
Labor--that examined one-stop delivery systems. We conducted our work
between April 2007 and August 2007 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Survey of States on WIA One-Stop Centers:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Survey of States on WIA One-Stop Centers:
Introduction:
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), an agency of the
Congress, is surveying states' workforce development agencies to
determine the extent to which states and localities are using one-stop
centers established under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) to deliver
employment and training services to job seekers and employers. The
study is requested by the Chairman, House Committee on Education and
Labor.
This questionnaire contains questions related to your state's one-stop
delivery system, sources of funding used to finance the designated
comprehensive one-stop centers, the programs contained, and customer
service satisfaction at one-stop centers. It asks for specific
information about comprehensive one-stop centers and satellite or
affiliated sites—these sites are generally under the auspices of
comprehensive one-stop centers and offer more limited services. You may
need to coordinate with local one-stop officials to complete this
questionnaire.
If you have questions about the questionnaire, contact Thomas McCabe at
202-512-3383 or McCabeT@gao.gov or Timothy Hall at 202-512-7I92 or
HallT@gao.gov.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Instructions:
This survey can be completed on your computer. To do this, first save
the MSWord file containing the survey to your computer. You may then
enter your responses directly to that file.
Completing the survey is very simple. There are only a few rules to
follow.
* Please use your mouse to navigate by clicking on the field or check
box you wish to answer.
* To select a check box, simply click on the center of the box and an
'X' will appear.
* To change or deselect a check box response, simply click on the check
box and the 'X' will disappear.
* To answer a question that requires that you enter a number or write a
comment, click on the answer box and begin typing. You may type as much
as you wish; the box will expand to accommodate your answer.
When you have completed your entries for a particular session or when
you have completed the entire questionnaire, re-save the MSWord file
and your answers will be saved. When your questionnaire has been
completed, you may e-mail your completed questionnaire as an e-mail
attachment to either Thomas McCabe at McCabeT@gao.gov or Timothy Hall
at HallT@gao.gov.
Thank you very much.
Terms Used in This Questionnaire:
Please review the definitions of the terms used throughout this
questionnaire. Some of the definitions will be repeated just prior to
the questions in which they appear.
Comprehensive One-Stop Center: A designated location where multiple
employment and training programs provide access to services for job
seekers and employers.
E&T: Employment and Training Programs.
Infrastructure Costs: The non-personnel costs necessary for the general
operation of a one-stop center, including the rental costs of the
facilities, to costs of utilities and maintenance, and equipment
(including adaptive technology for individuals with disabilities).
LWIA: Local Workforce Investment Area.
One-Stop Delivery System: Comprehensive one-stop centers and all
satellite or affiliated sites.
Participant: An individual who is determined eligible to participate in
a program and receives a service funded by the program in either a
physical location or remotely through electronic linkages.
Physical Location: Refers to a comprehensive one-stop center, a
satellite, or affiliated site where services and activities funded by
the program are available, or other specialized centers and sites
designed to address special customer needs, such as company work sites
for dislocated workers.
Satellite or Affiliated Site: A designated location that provides
access to at least one employment or training program and where
information on other programs is available.
TAA: Trade Adjustment Assistance.
TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
TANF-Related Services: Services funded by the federal TANF grant or
state Maintenance-of-Effort funds, but does not refer to Department of
Labor funded Welfare-to-Work grants.
Veterans' E&T: Veterans' Employment and Training programs.
WIA: Workforce Investment Act.
1. Please enter the following information for the person most
knowledgeable about the questionnaire responses in the event we need to
clarify a response.
State:
Contact name:
Title:
Telephone number (include area code):
E-mail address:
Comprehensive One-Stop Centers:
For the purpose of this survey, the term comprehensive one-stop center
means a designated location where multiple employment and training
programs provide access to services for job seekers and employers.
2. As of April 1, 2007, how many Local Workforce Investment Areas
(LWIAs) does your state have? (Enter number)
LWIAs:
3. As of April 1, 2007, how many separate comprehensive one-stop
centers does your state have? (Enter number. Do not include satellite
or affiliated sites. See note below.)
Comprehensive one-stop centers:
Note: If you can only provide an estimate of the number of your state's
comprehensive one-stop centers or if you cannot provide information
specifically for the "as of April 1, 2007" date, please enter your best
estimate in the space above and briefly describe that estimate or
explain any variation from the date in the space below.
Explanation for question 3:
4. How many, if any, of your state's LWIAs have more than one
comprehensive one-stop center? (Enter number. Do not include satellite
or affiliated sites. If none, enter zero.)
LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop center.
Please Note: If the answer to question 4 is zero Skip to question 6. If
the answer to question 4 is greater than zero - Continue with question
5a.
5.a. In your state, what is the largest number of comprehensive one-
stop centers in any one LWIA? (Enter number. Do not include satellite
or affiliated sites.)
Comprehensive one-stop centers:
b. What is the name of the LWIA with the largest number of
comprehensive one-stop centers? (Note: If more than one of your largest
LWIAs has equal numbers of comprehensive one-stop centers, provide the
names of each of the largest LWIAs):
c. Approximately how many participants did this LWIA serve through the
one-stop system in program year 2005? (Note: If you listed more than
one LWIA in "b" above, list the total number of participants served for
the LWIAs listed.)
Participants or Do not know.
6. How many comprehensive one-stop centers were in operation in your
state during program years 2003 and 2005? (Enter numbers. Do not
include satellite or affiliated sites. If none, enter zero. See note
below.)
Program year 2003 (as of June 30, 2004): centers;
Program year 2005 (as of June 30, 2006): centers.
Note: If you can only provide estimates of the number of your state's
comprehensive one-stop centers in operation during these years or if
you cannot provide information specifically for the "as of June 30"
date(s), please enter your best estimate in the spaces above and
briefly describe the estimate or explain any variation from the dates
in the space below.
Explanation for question 6:
Please Note:
If the number of comprehensive one-stop centers in your state increased
between program years 2003 and 2005, Continue with question 7.
If the number of comprehensive one-stop centers in your state decreased
between program years 2003 and 2005, Skip to question 8.
If the number of centers did not change at all between program years
2003-2005 - Skip to question 9.
7. In general, what are the reason(s) for the overall increase in the
aggregate number of comprehensive one-stop centers between program year
2003 and 2005? (Check all that apply.)
Increased demand for services:
Increased funds available to support additional centers:
Increased number of on-site partners:
Increased use of electronic and other linkages:
Other reason(s), Please specify:
If you answered question 7, skip to question 9.
8. In general, what are the reason(s) for the overall decrease in the
aggregate number of comprehensive one-stop centers between program year
2003 and 2005? (Check all that apply.)
Decreased demand for services:
Decreased funds available to support centers:
Other reason(s), Please specify:
Financing of One-Stop Center Systems:
Infrastructure costs refer to the non-personnel costs that are
necessary for the general operation of a one-stop center, including the
rental costs of the facilities, the costs of utilities and maintenance,
and equipment (including adaptive technology for individuals with
disabilities).
9. Does your state track the percentage of all WIA funds that are used
to fund the total infrastructure costs to operate the comprehensive one-
stop centers in your state? (Do not consider satellite or affiliated
sites in your response.)
Yes:
No:
10.a. What was your state's total allocation of all WIA funds for
program year 2005?
$ total state allocation of WIA funds:
b. What percent of the total allocation of all WIA funds for program
year 2005 were used for infrastructure to operate the comprehensive one-
stop centers in your state?
percent or, Do not know:
This percentage represents an actual amount:
This percentage represents an estimate:
11. a. What was the state's total allocation of all Employment Service
(Wagner-Peyser) funds for program year 2005?
$ total state allocation of Employment Service (Wagner-Peyser) funds:
b. What percent of the total allocation of all Employment Service
(Wagner-Peyser) funds for program year 2005 were used for
infrastructure to operate the comprehensive one-stop centers in your
state?
percent:
This percentage represents an actual amount:
This percentage represents an estimate:
12. For program year 2005, were each of the following funding sources
used to support the infrastructure costs of the comprehensive one-stop
centers in your state? (Check "Yes" or "No" in each row. Do not include
funding sources for satellite or affiliated sites.)
a. WIA Adult, Dislocated Worker, or Youth:
b. WIA State Funds:
c. Employment Service (Wagner-Peyser):
d. Trade Adjustment Assistance:
e. Veterans' E&T Programs:
f. Vocational Rehabilitation:
g. Job Corps:
h. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF):
i. Adult Education and Literacy:
j. Unemployment Insurance:
k. Other Federal Funds — Specify below::
1. Community Colleges:
m. State Funds:
n. Local Funds:
o. Other funds including private funds — Specify below:
13. a. For program year 2005, which of the above funding sources
contributed the most to financing the one-stop centers?
(List the top five funding sources in order of their level of
contribution. Use the letter designation from question 12 that
corresponds to the funding source.)
The funding source contributing the most is:
The 2nd highest contributing funding source is:
The 3rd highest contributing funding source is:
The 4th highest contributing funding source is:
The 5th highest contributing funding source is:
b. For program year 2005, approximately, what percent of the total
infrastructure costs were incurred by the program ranked first (i.e.,
the program that contributed the most)? (Enter percent and indicate
whether this percentage represents an actual amount or an estimate.)
percent of total infrastructure costs:
This percentage represents an actual amount:
This percentage represents an estimate:
Satellite or Affiliated Sites:
For the purpose of this survey, the term "satellite or affiliated site"
refers to a designated location that provides access to at least one
employment or training program and where information on other programs
is available.
14. a. How many designated satellite or affiliated sites were in
operation in your state during program years 2003 and 2005? (Enter
numbers. If none, enter zero.)
Program year 2003 (as of June 30, 2004): sites;
Program year 2005 (as of June 30, 2006): sites.
Note: If you can only provide estimates of the number of your state's
satellite or affiliated sites in operation during these years or if you
cannot provide information specifically for the "as of June 30"
date(s), please enter your best estimate in the spaces above and
briefly describe the estimate or explain any variation from the dates
in the space below.
Explanation for question 14a:
b. If the number of satellite or affiliated sites changed between
program year 2003 and 2005, what were the reason(s) for the change?
15. As of April 1, 2007, how many designated satellite or affiliated
sites does your state have? (Enter number. If none, enter zero.)
Satellite or affiliated sites:
Note: If you can only provide an estimate of the number of your state's
satellite or affiliated sites in operation as of April I, 2007, please
enter this estimate in the space above and briefly describe the
estimate or explain any variation from the April 1, 2007 date in the
space below.
Please Note:
If the answer to question 15 is zero, Skip to question 17a.
If the answer to question 15 is greater than zero, Continue with
question 16a.
16. a. Of the designated satellite or affiliated sites in your state as
of April 1, 2007, how many are "stand-alone" Employment Service (Wagner-
Peyser) offices? (Enter number. If none, enter zero).
Number of "stand-alone" Employment Service offices:
Note: If you can only provide an estimate of the number of your state's
satellite or affiliated sites as of April 1, 2007, that were "stand-
alone" Employment Service (Wagner-Peyser) offices, please enter your
best estimate in the space above and briefly describe the estimate or
explain any variation from the date in the space below.
Explanation for question 16a:
Please note: If zero entered in question 16a above - Go to question 17,
otherwise, continue with 16b.
b. In program year 2005, approximately what amount of your state's
Employment Service allotment was used to support the infrastructure of
the "stand-alone" Employment Service offices?
$ Amount to support infrastructure of "stand-alone" Employment Service
offices:
This entry represents an actual amount:
This entry represents an estimate:
c. In program year 2005, were any federal funds other than Wagner-
Peyser used to support the infrastructure of the "stand-alone"
Employment Service offices?
Yes: Please specify the source(s) of the other federal funds below:
No:
Not sure:
Source 1:
Source 2:
If available, please provide total dollar amount provided by each
source or the percent of the total allocation for "stand alone"
Employment Service offices in the space below.
Source 1:
Source 2:
17. How many "stand-alone" Employment Service offices in your state are
currently not designated as satellite or affiliated sites? (Enter
number. If none, enter zero.)
Number of "stand-alone" Employment Service offices not designated as
satellite or affiliated sites:
18. a. As of April I, 2007, how many of the designated satellite or
affiliated sites in your state are not "stand-alone" Employment Service
offices? (Enter number. If none, enter zero.)
Number of satellite or affiliated sites that are not "stand-alone"
Employment Service offices:
Note: If you can only provide an estimate of the number of your state's
designated satellite or affiliated sites that were not "stand-alone"
Employment Service offices, please enter your best estimate in the
space above and briefly describe the estimate or explain any variation
from the April 1, 2007 date in the space below.
Explanation for question 18a:
Please note: If zero "0" entered in question 18a, skip to question 19a.
Otherwise continue with question 18b.
b. Which programs are typically provided at the designated satellite or
affiliated sites that are not "stand alone" Employment Service Offices?
Please note: A physical location refers to a designated comprehensive
one-stop center, satellite, or affiliated site where services and
activities funded by the program are available, or other specialized
centers and sites designed to address special customer needs, such as
company work sites for dislocated workers.
19. a. What is the total number of physical locations used to operate
the one-stop system in your state? (Enter number. Please include both
comprehensive one-stop centers and satellite or affiliated sites in
your entry):
Physical locations:
b. Of these physical locations, how many are held under each of the
following arrangements? (Enter numbers. Total should equal the number
of physical locations entered in question 19a. If none, enter zero.)
Owned by the state:
Leased:
Rented (i.e., arranged on a short-term basis with no fixed period of
tenancy):
Otherwise provided (e.g., facility provided free of charge):
c. How many of these physical locations are located on Community
College campuses? (Enter number. If none, enter zero):
Physical locations located on Community College campuses:
Programs through the One-Stop Center Systems:
WIA Mandatory Programs:
The following set of questions will ask you to identify the type of co-
location or linkage for each of the I7 mandatory federal programs
offered at the comprehensive one-stop centers in your state.
20. In question 3 you reported that your state had comprehensive one-
stop centers. Of these comprehensive one stop centers, how many provide
access to services for job seekers for the following federal programs
in each of the three ways listed at the top of the matrix?
(Enter numbers. The total of each row should equal (i.e., the total
number of comprehensive one-stop centers entered in question 3). Enter
"0" if no center offers programs in that way. Do not include satellite
or affiliated sites in any of your entries.)
At comprehensive one-stop centers:
These program services are provided on-site at least part of the time;
These program services are only available electronically or through
referral;
These program services are not available through the one-stop.
Federal Program:
a. WIA Adult;
b. WIA Dislocated Worker;
c. WIA Youth;
d. Employment Service (Wagner-Peyser);
e. Veterans' E&T;
f. Job Corps;
g. Employment and training programs for Native Americans;
h. Employment and training programs for migrant and seasonal farm
workers;
i. Vocational rehabilitation programs;
j. Adult education and literacy;
k. Senior Community Service Employment Program;
1. Vocational Education (Perkins Act);
m. Trade Adjustment Assistance;
n. Community Services Block Grant activities;
o. HUD E&T;
p. Unemployment Insurance;
21. In your state, approximately how many comprehensive one-stop
centers integrate functions in the following ways? (Check one answer in
each row.)
None; Few; Some; Most; All; Not sure.
a. Intake forms;
b. Universal release of information;
c. Orientation;
d. Common reception area;
e. Regular multi-agency meeting;
f. Internal Web site;
g. Information systems (e.g., case management);
h. Other — Please specify:
22. On average, has the number of programs available on-site at
comprehensive one-stop centers in your state increased, stayed at about
the same level, or decreased since program year 2003? (Check one.)
Increased, Please explain the reason(s) for the increase;
Stayed at about the same level;
Decreased, Please explain the reason(s) for the decrease;
No basis to judge.
Reason(s) for the increase or decrease:
23. Thinking about a typical comprehensive one-stop center in your
state, which of the following federal programs are most often provided
on-site? (Check all federal programs that most often provide services
on site.)
WIA Adult;
WIA Dislocated Worker;
WIA Youth;
Employment Service (Wagner-Peyser);
Veterans' E&T;
Job Corps;
Employment and training programs for Native Americans;
Employment and training programs for migrant and seasonal farm workers;
Vocational rehabilitation programs;
Adult education and literacy;
Senior Community Service Employment Program;
Vocational Education (Perkins Act);
Trade Adjustment Assistance;
Community Services Block Grant activities;
HUD E&T;
Unemployment Insurance;
TANF;
Food Stamp E&T;
Other federal program(s), Please specify:
Please note: For the purpose of this survey, a participant refers to an
individual who is determined eligible to participate in a program and
receives a service funded by the program in either a physical location
or remotely through electronic linkages.
24. Approximately how many participants were served state-wide by the
one-stop delivery system in program year 2005? (Enter number.)
Number of participants:
Program Monitoring Through Customer Satisfaction Surveys:
25. Has your state been issued a waiver to report only on common
measures to the Department of Labor?
Yes;
No.
26. For program year 2005, did your state report customer satisfaction
data to the federal Department of Labor?
Yes;
No.
27. Has your state established additional customer satisfaction
measures for job seekers and participating employers beyond what is
reported to the federal Department of Labor? (Check "Yes" or "No" in
each row.)
a. State has established additional customer satisfaction measures for
job seekers: yes; no.
b. State has established additional customer satisfaction measures for
participating employers : yes; no.
Please Note: If the answer to both questions 27a and 27b was "No" 4
Skip to question 29. If the answer to question 27a or 27b was "Yes" 4
Continue with question 28.
28. Please provide information on the types of customer satisfaction
data you collect beyond what is reported to the federal Department of
Labor in the space below.
29. Approximately what percent of the local one-stops collect
information on customer satisfaction beyond what is reported to the
state? (Select one.)
0%;
1-25%;
26-50%;
51-75%;
76-99%;
100%;
No basis to judge.
30. If you have any comments on any of the issues raised in this
questionnaire or other comments on the WIA one-stop center system,
please enter them in the space provided below.
If your questionnaire is now complete, please save this MS Word file
and e-mail it as an attachment to either Thomas McCabe at
McCabeT@gao.gov or Timothy Hall at HallT@ao.gov.
Thank you very much for your participation.
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Numbers of Local Workforce Investment Areas (LWIA) and
Comprehensive One-Stop Centers, and Related Information by State, as of
April 1, 2007:
State: Alabama;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 3;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 1;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 18;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 20.
State: Alaska;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 1;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 1;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 7;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 7.
State: Arizona;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 14;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 6;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 3;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 23.
State: Arkansas;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 10;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 2;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 3;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 14.
State: California;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 50;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 25;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 16;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 148.
State: Colorado;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 9;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 6;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 14;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 34.
State: Connecticut;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 5;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 2;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 2;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 7.
State: Delaware;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 1;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 1;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 4;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 4.
State: Florida;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 24;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 23;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 13;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 79.
State: Georgia;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 20;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 9;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 6;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 46.
State: Hawaii;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 4;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 0;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 1;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 4.
State: Idaho;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 1;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 1;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 24;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 24.
State: Illinois;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 26;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 12;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 4;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 44.
State: Indiana;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 2;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 2;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 24;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 26.
State: Iowa;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 15;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 1;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 2;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 16.
State: Kansas;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 5;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 0;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 1;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 5.
State: Kentucky;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 10;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 10;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 4;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 31.
State: Louisiana;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 18;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 8;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 4;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 32.
State: Maine;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 4;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 4;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 4;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 20.
State: Maryland;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 12;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 7;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 3;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 22.
State: Massachusetts;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 16;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 13;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 3;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 32.
State: Michigan;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 25;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 22;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 9;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 96.
State: Minnesota;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 16;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 11;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 8;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 47.
State: Mississippi;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 4;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 4;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 14;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 44.
State: Missouri;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 14;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 9;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 7;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 34.
State: Montana;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 2;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 2;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 12;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 14.
State: Nebraska;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 3;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 0;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 1;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 3.
State: Nevada;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 2;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 1;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 3;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 4.
State: New Hampshire;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 1;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 1;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 13;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 13.
State: New Jersey;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 18;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 6;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 4;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 25.
State: New Mexico;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 4;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 2;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 4;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 12.
State: New York;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 33;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 21;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 7;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 76.
State: North Carolina;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 24;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 21;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 9;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 103.
State: North Dakota;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 1;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 1;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 8;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 8.
State: Ohio;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 19;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 2;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 12;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 31.
State: Oklahoma;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 12;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 3;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 3;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 17.
State: Oregon;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 7;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 3;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 14;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 25.
State: Pennsylvania;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 23;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 15;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 7;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 71.
State: Rhode Island;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 2;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 0;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 1;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 2.
State: South Carolina;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 12;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 4;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 3;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 18.
State: South Dakota;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 1;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 1;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 14;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 14.
State: Tennessee;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 13;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 2;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 2;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 15.
State: Texas;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 28;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 24;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 30;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 163.
State: Utah;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 1;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 1;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 35;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 35.
State: Vermont;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 1;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 0;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 1;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 1.
State: Virginia;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 16;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 10;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 5;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 34.
State: Washington;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 12;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 8;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 4;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 25.
State: West Virginia;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 7;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 6;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 5;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 19.
State: Wisconsin;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 11;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 9;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 7;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 38.
State: Wyoming;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 1;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 1;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: 12;
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 12.
State: Total;
Total number of LWIAs in state: 563;
Number of LWIAs with more than one comprehensive one-stop: 324;
Largest number of comprehensive one-stop centers in LWIA: [Empty];
Total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in state: 1,637.
Source: GAO survey of 50 states.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Changes in Numbers of Comprehensive One-Stop Centers and
Satellite or Affiliated Sites by State, 2001, 2003, and 2007:
States: Alabama;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 30;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 27;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 20;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -33%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 31;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 30;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 22;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -29%.
States: Alaska;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 6;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 7;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 7;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 17%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 16;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 17;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 17;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 6%.
States: Arizona;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 20;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 23;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 23;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 15%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 36;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 35;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 36;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 0%.
States: Arkansas;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 14;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 13;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 14;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 0%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 54;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 57;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 51;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -6%.
States: California;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 162;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 166;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 148;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -9%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 129;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 116;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 118;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -9%.
States: Colorado;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 32;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 34;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 34;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 6%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 44;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 40;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 40;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -9%.
States: Connecticut;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 8;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 11;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 7;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -13%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 11;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 10;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 15;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 36%.
States: Delaware;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 4;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 4;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 4;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 0%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 0;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 0;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 0;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 0%.
States: Florida;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 112;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 96;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 79;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -29%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 56;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 39;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 17;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -70%.
States: Georgia;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 27;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 46;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 46;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 70%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 0;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 78;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 116;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: a.
States: Hawaii;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 10;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 4;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 4;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -60%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 3;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 10;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 9;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 200%.
States: Idaho;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 6;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 6;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 24;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 300%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 105;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 68;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 50;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -52%.
States: Illinois;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 44;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 46;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 44;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 0%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 54;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 53;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 77;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 43%.
States: Indiana;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 67;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 27;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 26;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -61%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 0;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 75;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 75;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: a.
States: Iowa;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 16;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 16;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 16;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 0%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 80;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 56;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 39;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -51%.
States: Kansas;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 15;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 5;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 5;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -67%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 26;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 20;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 20;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -23%.
States: Kentucky;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 27;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 29;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 31;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 15%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 92;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 129;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 131;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 42%.
States: Louisiana;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 22;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 34;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 32;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 45%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 46;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 50;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 47;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 2%.
States: Maine;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 23;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 20;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 20;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -13%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 0;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 2;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 1;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: a.
States: Maryland;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 28;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 28;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 22;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -21%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 18;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 13;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 11;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -39%.
States: Massachusetts;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 35;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 32;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 32;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -9%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 3;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 5;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 5;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 67%.
States: Michigan;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 102;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 100;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 96;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -6%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 14;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 11;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 17;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 21%.
States: Minnesota;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 53;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 50;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 47;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -11%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 14;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 29;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 0;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -100%.
States: Mississippi;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 33;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 23;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 44;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 33%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 216;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 23;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 12;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -94%.
States: Missouri;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 30;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 34;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 34;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 13%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 35;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 126;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 135;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 286%.
States: Montana;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 2;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 2;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 14;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 600%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 78;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 12;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 5;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -94%.
States: Nebraska;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 5;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 3;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 3;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -40%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 16;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 15;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 17;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 6%.
States: Nevada;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 2;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 5;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 4;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 100%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 53;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 9;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 7;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -87%.
States: New Hampshire;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 13;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 13;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 13;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 0%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 81;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 0;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 0;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -100%.
States: New Jersey;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 17;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 27;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 25;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 47%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 24;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 15;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 21;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -13%.
States: New Mexico;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 26;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 5;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 12;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -54%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 2;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 9;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 11;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 450%.
States: New York;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 61;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 76;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 76;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 25%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 300;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 19;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 18;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -94%.
States: North Carolina;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 87;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 96;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 103;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 18%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 15;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 15;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 23;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 53%.
States: North Dakota;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 13;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 8;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 8;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -38%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 2;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 9;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 9;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 350%.
States: Ohio;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 98;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 31;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 31;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -68%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 0;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 59;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 59;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: a.
States: Oklahoma;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 34;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 31;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 17;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -50%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 24;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 17;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 31;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 29%.
States: Oregon;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 40;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 33;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 25;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -38%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 4;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 5;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 26;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 550%.
States: Pennsylvania;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 46;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 109;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 71;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 54%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 44;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: b;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 1;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -98%.
States: Rhode Island;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 2;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 2;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 2;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 0%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 4;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 4;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 4;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 0%.
States: South Carolina;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 17;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 17;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 18;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 6%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 29;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 38;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 45;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 55%.
States: South Dakota;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 19;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 14;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 14;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -26%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 4;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 4;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 4;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 0%.
States: Tennessee;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 14;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 15;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 15;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 7%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 42;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 55;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 55;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 31%.
States: Texas;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 144;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 155;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 163;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 13%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 107;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 104;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 103;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -4%.
States: Utah;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 34;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 36;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 35;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 3%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 6;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 104;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 104;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 1,633%.
States: Vermont;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 1;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 1;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 1;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 0%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 11;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 11;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 11;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 0%.
States: Virginia;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 40;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 43;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 34;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -15%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 43;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 36;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 21;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -51%.
States: Washington;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 24;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 27;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 25;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 4%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 30;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 42;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 42;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 40%.
States: West Virginia;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 68;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 18;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 19;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: -72%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 9;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 45;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 38;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 322%.
States: Wisconsin;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 11;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 66;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 38;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 245%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 14;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 12;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 40;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 186%.
States: Wyoming;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 12;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 12;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 12;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 0%;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 7;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 7;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 8;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: 14%.
States: Total;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2001: 1,756;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2003: 1,726;
Number of comprehensive one-stop centers: 2007: 1,637;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: [Empty];
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2001: 2,032;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2003: 1,738;
Number of satellite or affiliated sites: 2007: 1,764;
Percentage change, 2001 to 2007: [Empty].
Source: GAO survey of 50 states.
[A] Percentage change cannot be calculated.
[B] State did not report this information.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Programs Typically Available at Comprehensive One-Stop
Centers by State:
In our survey, we asked states to consider the typical comprehensive
one-stop center in their state and identify federal programs that were
most often provided on-site. Figure 9 summarizes a typical one-stop
center for each state.
Figure 9: Programs Available On-site in a Typical Comprehensive One-
Stop Center by State:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO survey of 50 states.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Distribution of Stand-alone Employment Service Offices in
States, as of April 1, 2007, and Employment Service Funds Used for
Infrastructure:
State: Arizona;
Stand-alone offices affiliated with the system: 13;
Stand-alone offices unaffiliated with the system: 7;
Total number of stand-alone offices: 20;
Percentage of one-stops with Employment Service available on-site: 70;
Amount of Employment Service funds used for infrastructure, program
year 2005: $784,000.
State: Arkansas;
Stand-alone offices affiliated with the system: 0;
Stand-alone offices unaffiliated with the system: 1;
Total number of stand-alone offices: 1;
Percentage of one-stops with Employment Service available on-site: 100;
Amount of Employment Service funds used for infrastructure, program
year 2005: [A].
State: California;
Stand-alone offices affiliated with the system: 0;
Stand-alone offices unaffiliated with the system: 12;
Total number of stand-alone offices: 12;
Percentage of one-stops with Employment Service available on-site: [A];
Amount of Employment Service funds used for infrastructure, program
year 2005: [A].
State: Connecticut;
Stand-alone offices affiliated with the system: 1;
Stand-alone offices unaffiliated with the system: 0;
Total number of stand-alone offices: 1;
Percentage of one-stops with Employment Service available on-site: 100;
Amount of Employment Service funds used for infrastructure, program
year 2005: $67,218.
State: Delaware;
Stand-alone offices affiliated with the system: 0;
Stand-alone offices unaffiliated with the system: 4;
Total number of stand-alone offices: 4;
Percentage of one-stops with Employment Service available on-site: 100;
Amount of Employment Service funds used for infrastructure, program
year 2005: a.
State: Hawaii;
Stand-alone offices affiliated with the system: 2;
Stand-alone offices unaffiliated with the system: 0;
Total number of stand-alone offices: 2;
Percentage of one-stops with Employment Service available on-site: 75;
Amount of Employment Service funds used for infrastructure, program
year 2005: $160,000.
State: Illinois;
Stand-alone offices affiliated with the system: 0;
Stand-alone offices unaffiliated with the system: 15;
Total number of stand-alone offices: 15;
Percentage of one-stops with Employment Service available on-site: 100;
Amount of Employment Service funds used for infrastructure, program
year 2005: [A].
State: Iowa;
Stand-alone offices affiliated with the system: 30;
Stand-alone offices unaffiliated with the system: 0;
Total number of stand-alone offices: 30;
Percentage of one-stops with Employment Service available on-site: 100;
Amount of Employment Service funds used for infrastructure, program
year 2005: $0.
State: Kansas;
Stand-alone offices affiliated with the system: 5;
Stand-alone offices unaffiliated with the system: 5;
Total number of stand-alone offices: 10;
Percentage of one-stops with Employment Service available on-site: 100;
Amount of Employment Service funds used for infrastructure, program
year 2005: $50,000.
State: Kentucky;
Stand-alone offices affiliated with the system: 9;
Stand-alone offices unaffiliated with the system: 0;
Total number of stand-alone offices: 9;
Percentage of one-stops with Employment Service available on-site: 100;
Amount of Employment Service funds used for infrastructure, program
year 2005: [A].
State: Montana;
Stand-alone offices affiliated with the system: 5;
Stand-alone offices unaffiliated with the system: 0;
Total number of stand-alone offices: 5;
Percentage of one-stops with Employment Service available on-site: 100;
Amount of Employment Service funds used for infrastructure, program
year 2005: $700,000.
State: New Mexico;
Stand-alone offices affiliated with the system: 11;
Stand-alone offices unaffiliated with the system: 0;
Total number of stand-alone offices: 11;
Percentage of one-stops with Employment Service available on-site: [A];
Amount of Employment Service funds used for infrastructure, program
year 2005: [A].
State: North Carolina;
Stand-alone offices affiliated with the system: 0;
Stand-alone offices unaffiliated with the system: 18;
Total number of stand-alone offices: 18;
Percentage of one-stops with Employment Service available on-site: 94;
Amount of Employment Service funds used for infrastructure, program
year 2005: [A].
State: Oklahoma;
Stand-alone offices affiliated with the system: 4;
Stand-alone offices unaffiliated with the system: 0;
Total number of stand-alone offices: 4;
Percentage of one-stops with Employment Service available on-site: 100;
Amount of Employment Service funds used for infrastructure, program
year 2005: [A].
State: South Carolina;
Stand-alone offices affiliated with the system: 16;
Stand-alone offices unaffiliated with the system: 6;
Total number of stand-alone offices: 22;
Percentage of one-stops with Employment Service available on-site: 94;
Amount of Employment Service funds used for infrastructure, program
year 2005: [A].
State: Tennessee;
Stand-alone offices affiliated with the system: 0;
Stand-alone offices unaffiliated with the system: 5;
Total number of stand-alone offices: 5;
Percentage of one-stops with Employment Service available on-site: 100;
Amount of Employment Service funds used for infrastructure, program
year 2005: [A].
State: Virginia;
Stand-alone offices affiliated with the system: 6;
Stand-alone offices unaffiliated with the system: 0;
Total number of stand-alone offices: 6;
Percentage of one-stops with Employment Service available on-site: 100;
Amount of Employment Service funds used for infrastructure, program
year 2005: [A].
State: West Virginia;
Stand-alone offices affiliated with the system: 1;
Stand-alone offices unaffiliated with the system: 0;
Total number of stand-alone offices: 1;
Percentage of one-stops with Employment Service available on-site: 100;
Amount of Employment Service funds used for infrastructure, program
year 2005: [A].
State: Total;
Stand-alone offices affiliated with the system: 103;
Stand-alone offices unaffiliated with the system: 73;
Total number of stand-alone offices: 176;
Percentage of one-stops with Employment Service available on-site:
[Empty];
Amount of Employment Service funds used for infrastructure, program
year 2005: [Empty].
Source: GAO survey of 50 states.
[A] State did not report this information.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Number and Percentage of Physical Locations at Community
Colleges by State, 2007:
State: Alabama;
Number of physical locations at community colleges: 10;
Percentage of states' physical locations at community colleges: 24.
State: Arkansas;
Number of physical locations at community colleges: 5;
Percentage of states' physical locations at community colleges: 8.
State: California;
Number of physical locations at community colleges: 10;
Percentage of states' physical locations at community colleges: 4.
State: Colorado;
Number of physical locations at community colleges: 5;
Percentage of states' physical locations at community colleges: 7.
State: Florida;
Number of physical locations at community colleges: 4;
Percentage of states' physical locations at community colleges: 4.
State: Georgia;
Number of physical locations at community colleges: 23;
Percentage of states' physical locations at community colleges: 14.
State: Illinois;
Number of physical locations at community colleges: 9;
Percentage of states' physical locations at community colleges: 7.
State: Indiana;
Number of physical locations at community colleges: 3;
Percentage of states' physical locations at community colleges: 3.
State: Iowa;
Number of physical locations at community colleges: 2;
Percentage of states' physical locations at community colleges: 4.
State: Kansas;
Number of physical locations at community colleges: 2;
Percentage of states' physical locations at community colleges: 8.
State: Kentucky;
Number of physical locations at community colleges: 6;
Percentage of states' physical locations at community colleges: 5.
State: Maine;
Number of physical locations at community colleges: 1;
Percentage of states' physical locations at community colleges: 5.
State: Maryland;
Number of physical locations at community colleges: 4;
Percentage of states' physical locations at community colleges: 12.
State: Michigan;
Number of physical locations at community colleges: 3;
Percentage of states' physical locations at community colleges: 3.
State: Minnesota;
Number of physical locations at community colleges: 6;
Percentage of states' physical locations at community colleges: 13.
State: Mississippi;
Number of physical locations at community colleges: 3;
Percentage of states' physical locations at community colleges: 5.
State: Missouri;
Number of physical locations at community colleges: 4;
Percentage of states' physical locations at community colleges: 2.
State: Nebraska;
Number of physical locations at community colleges: 1;
Percentage of states' physical locations at community colleges: 5.
State: New Jersey;
Number of physical locations at community colleges: 2;
Percentage of states' physical locations at community colleges: 4.
State: New York;
Number of physical locations at community colleges: 6;
Percentage of states' physical locations at community colleges: 6.
State: North Carolina;
Number of physical locations at community colleges: 31;
Percentage of states' physical locations at community colleges: 25.
State: Ohio;
Number of physical locations at community colleges: 1;
Percentage of states' physical locations at community colleges: 1.
State: Oklahoma;
Number of physical locations at community colleges: 5;
Percentage of states' physical locations at community colleges: 10.
State: Oregon;
Number of physical locations at community colleges: 9;
Percentage of states' physical locations at community colleges: 18.
State: Pennsylvania;
Number of physical locations at community colleges: 1;
Percentage of states' physical locations at community colleges: 1.
State: South Carolina;
Number of physical locations at community colleges: 3;
Percentage of states' physical locations at community colleges: 5.
State: Utah;
Number of physical locations at community colleges: 4;
Percentage of states' physical locations at community colleges: 3.
State: Virginia;
Number of physical locations at community colleges: 1;
Percentage of states' physical locations at community colleges: 2.
State: Washington;
Number of physical locations at community colleges: 10;
Percentage of states' physical locations at community colleges: 15.
State: Wisconsin;
Number of physical locations at community colleges: 11;
Percentage of states' physical locations at community colleges: 14.
State: Wyoming;
Number of physical locations at community colleges: 1;
Percentage of states' physical locations at community colleges: 5.
State: Total;
Number of physical locations at community colleges: 186;
Percentage of states' physical locations at community colleges: 6.
Source: GAO survey of 50 states.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: States' Reporting on Comprehensive One-Stop Centers
Collecting Additional Information on Customer Satisfaction, Program
Year 2005:
State: Arizona;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Check];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Empty].
State: Arkansas;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Check];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Empty].
State: Colorado;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Check];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Empty].
State: Delaware;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Check];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Empty].
State: Hawaii;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Check];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Empty].
State: Idaho;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Check].
State: Illinois;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Check];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Empty].
State: Indiana;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Check];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Empty].
State: Iowa;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Check];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Empty].
State: Kentucky;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Check];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Empty].
State: Maine;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Check];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Empty].
State: Maryland;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Check];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Empty].
State: Massachusetts;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Check];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Empty].
State: Michigan;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Check];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Empty].
State: Minnesota;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Check];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Empty].
State: Mississippi;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Check];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Empty].
State: Montana;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Check].
State: Nebraska;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Check];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Empty].
State: Nevada;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Check].
State: New Hampshire;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Check];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Empty].
State: New Mexico;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Check];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Empty].
State: New York;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Check];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Empty].
State: North Dakota;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Check].
State: Ohio;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Check];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Empty].
State: Oklahoma;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Check];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Empty].
State: Oregon;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Check];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Empty].
State: Pennsylvania;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Check];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Empty].
State: Rhode Island;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Check];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Empty].
State: South Carolina;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Check];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Empty].
State: South Dakota;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Check].
State: Tennessee;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Check];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Empty].
State: Texas;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Check];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Empty].
State: Utah;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Check].
State: Vermont;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Check].
State: Washington;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Check];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Empty].
State: West Virginia;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Check];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Empty].
State: Wisconsin;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Check];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Empty].
State: Wyoming;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: [Check];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: [Empty];
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: [Empty].
State: Total;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: 100 percent of one-stops: 8;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Majority of one-stops: 9;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: Some of the one-stops: 14;
Extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer
satisfaction: None of the one-stops: 7.
Source: GAO survey of 50 states:
Note: The remaining 12 states did not know whether or not the one-stop
centers were collecting additional information on customer satisfaction.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Labor:
[End of section]
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Cynthia M. Fagnoni (202) 512-7215 or fagnonic@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director:
Dianne M. Blank, Assistant Director:
Timothy Hall, Analyst-in-Charge:
Thomas McCabe made significant contributions to this report in all
facets of the work. In addition, Stuart Kaufman assisted in the design
and analysis of the national survey; Jean McSween provided
methodological assistance, Jessica Botsford provided legal support, and
Susannah Compton helped develop the report's message.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Workforce Investment Act: Additional Actions Would Further Improve the
Workforce System. GAO-07-1051T. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2007.
Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Labor Could Improve
Information on Reemployment Services, Outcomes, and Program Impact. GAO-
07-594. Washington, D.C.: May 24, 2007.
Workforce Investment Act: Employers Found One-Stop Centers Useful in
Hiring Low-Skilled Workers; Performance Information Could Help Gauge
Employer Involvement. GAO-07-167. Washington, D.C.: December 22, 2006.
National Emergency Grants: Labor Has Improved Its Grant Award
Timeliness and Data Collection, but Further Steps Can Improve Process.
GAO-06-870. Washington, D.C.: September 5, 2006.
Trade Adjustment Assistance: Most Workers in Five Layoffs Received
Services, but Better Outreach Needed on New Benefits. GAO-06-43.
Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2006.
Youth Opportunity Grants: Lessons Can Be Learned from Program, but
Labor Needs to Make Data Available. GAO-06-53. Washington, D.C.:
December 9, 2005.
Workforce Investment Act: Labor and States Have Taken Actions to
Improve Data Quality, but Additional Steps Are Needed. GAO-06-82.
Washington, D.C.: November 14, 2005.
Workforce Investment Act: Substantial Funds Are Used for Training, but
Little Is Known about Training Outcomes. GAO-05-650. Washington, D.C.:
June 29, 2005.
Unemployment Insurance: Better Data Needed to Assess Reemployment
Services to Claimants. GAO-05-413. Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2005.
Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider Alternative Approaches
to Implement New Performance and Reporting Requirements. GAO-05-539.
Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2005.
Workforce Investment Act: Employers Are Aware of, Using, and Satisfied
with One-Stop Services, but More Data Could Help Labor Better Address
Employers' Needs. GAO-05-259. Washington, D.C.: February 18, 2005.
Workforce Investment Act: Labor Has Taken Several Actions to Facilitate
Access to One-Stops for Persons with Disabilities, but These Efforts
May Not Be Sufficient. GAO-05-54. Washington, D.C.: December 14, 2004.
Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed
Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help. GAO-
04-657. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004.
National Emergency Grants: Labor Is Instituting Changes to Improve
Award Process, but Further Actions Are Required to Expedite Grant
Awards and Improve Data. GAO-04-496. Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2004.
Workforce Investment Act: Labor Actions Can Help States Improve Quality
of Performance Outcome Data and Delivery of Youth Services. GAO-04-308.
Washington, D.C.: February 23, 2004.
Workforce Training: Almost Half of States Fund Worker Training and
Employment through Employer Taxes and Most Coordinate with Federally
Funded Programs. GAO-04-282. Washington, D.C.: February 13, 2004.
Workforce Investment Act: Potential Effects of Alternative Formulas on
State Allocations. GAO-03-1043. Washington, D.C.: August 28, 2003.
Workforce Investment Act: Exemplary One-Stops Devised Strategies to
Strengthen Services, but Challenges Remain for Reauthorization. GAO- 03-
884T. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003.
Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to
Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and Information
Sharing Is Needed. GAO-03-725. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003.
Workforce Investment Act: Issues Related to Allocation Formulas for
Youth, Adults, and Dislocated Workers. GAO-03-636. Washington, D.C.:
April 25, 2003.
Workforce Training: Employed Worker Programs Focus on Business Needs,
but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access for Some Workers.
GAO-03-353. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2003.
Older Workers: Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Jobs and Job
Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access to Other
Services. GAO-03-350. Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2003.
Workforce Investment Act: States' Spending Is on Track, but Better
Guidance Would Improve Financial Reporting. GAO-03-239. Washington,
D.C.: November 22, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: States and Localities Increasingly Coordinate
Services for TANF Clients, but Better Information Needed on Effective
Approaches. GAO-02-696. Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Youth Provisions Promote New Service
Strategies, but Additional Guidance Would Enhance Program Development.
GAO-02-413. Washington, D.C.: April 5, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding Formula
Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program. GAO-02-274. Washington, D.C.:
February 11, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance Measures
to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA's Effectiveness. GAO-02-275.
Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns
over New Requirements. GAO-02-72. Washington, D.C.: Oct. 4, 2001. Also
testimony GAO-02-94T.
Workforce Investment Act: Implementation Status and the Integration of
TANF Services. GAO/T-HEHS-00-145. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2000.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Findings from these surveys were reported in the following GAO
reports: GAO,Workforce Investment Act: States and Localities
Increasingly Coordinate Services for TANF Clients, but Better
Information Needed on Effective Approaches, GAO-02-696 (Washington,
D.C.: July 3, 2002), and Workforce Investment Act: Implementation
Status and the Integration of TANF Services, GAO/T-HEHS-00-145
(Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2000).
[2] As part of the one-stop service delivery system, the Employment
Service focuses on providing a variety of employment-related labor
exchange services including job search assistance, job referral, and
placement assistance for job seekers, reemployment services to
unemployment insurance claimants, and recruitment services to employers
with job openings.
[3] For the purposes of this report, we defined a comprehensive one-
stop center as a designated location where multiple employment and
training programs provide access to services for job seekers and
employers.
[4] TANF, a block grant to states, provides temporary assistance to
needy families. In general, able-bodied TANF recipients, who receive
cash assistance, must participate in work or work-related activities,
and there is a 5-year lifetime limit on federal assistance. Beyond
work, work-related activities include education and training, job
search, and participation in community service.
[5] Kate Dunham, Annelies Goger, Jennifer Henderson-Frakes, and Nichole
Tucker, Workforce Development in Rural Areas: Changes in Access,
Service Delivery and Partnerships, Social Policy Research Associates,
Oakland, California, June 30, 2005.
[6] A different survey question was used in 2001 than in 2007. The 2001
survey asked states to report the number of comprehensive one-stop
centers that offered TANF on-site at least part-time, and we used this
information to calculate how many had program services available in the
majority of one-stop centers. The 2007 survey asked states to identify
which programs were available at a typical one-stop center in the
state.
[7] 29 U.S.C.§49f(e).
[8] One state did not provide data on the number of physical locations
that were state-owned.
[9] For the purposes of this report, we defined infrastructure costs as
the nonpersonnel costs necessary for the general operation of a one-
stop center, including the rental costs of the facilities, costs of
utilities and maintenance, and equipment (including adaptive technology
for individuals with disabilities).
[10] The 2 states (Mississippi and Pennsylvania) that did not submit
customer satisfaction data were granted waivers exempting them from the
requirement to report this information.
[11] Labor reports the following states have waivers: Colorado,
District of Columbia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.
[12] The three common performance measures for adults are entered
employment, employment retention, and average earnings; the three
common performance measures for youth are placement in employment or
education, attainment of a degree or certificate, and literacy and
numeracy gains.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Susan Becker, Acting Manager, Beckers@GAO.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: